COPE: Drama of hope and despair

cross currents - Jayatilleke de silva 

- Nov 05, 2016

The anxiously awaited COPE report has been submitted to Parliament and subsequently sent to the Attorney-General’s department for necessary action. COPE and particularly its Chairman should be congratulated for producing a substantial report after careful deliberation.

The task was not easy in view of the conflicting interests and positions taken up by its members on the controversial Central Bank Bond issue of February 2015 in which the former Governor of the Bank Arjun Mahendran was allegedly involved in influencing the auction and favouring one bidder-the Perpetual Treasuries which has accrued unprecedented and huge profits as a result. This issue was also the subject of two previous investigations and Parliament made a request to COPE to go into the matter. The Report reflected a rare broad consensus despite the inclusion of footnotes with dissenting views on some matters.

The consensus also cut across the political divide and exposed existing and potential fissures inside the ruling coalition. The SLFP has taken a united stand not so much on account of any principled approach against fraud and corruption but with the aim of scoring a point over their partner in the Government at the forthcoming polls. The so-called Joint Opposition has found in the Bond issue a golden opportunity to divert public attention from the alleged misdeeds of its own members and pose as paragons of virtue upholding public interest. The Tamil National Alliance has also fallen in line with the majority upholding public interest.

COPE findings

For the JVP the COPE exercise has raised its stature as a party responsive to public interest and given them training in consensus building, a feature rather wanting in them in the past. However, whether this would translate into commensurate electoral advances for the party is a moot point.

The UNP stands embarrassed over COPE findings, especially in view of attempts by several of its prominent members to derail the findings and cast aspersions on the COPE President. In fact instead of assisting the investigations some were demanding punishment for the prosecution instead of the defendant.

However, it is to the credit of the Government of which the UNP has a majority share that it promptly forwarded the COPE Report to the Attorney-General for necessary action instead of putting it in cold storage as the former government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa has done.

COPE findings have kindled the hopes of the public that at last a beginning has been made in pursing in earnest investigations into fraud and corruption. However, the fate of past COPE reports does not give much room for much optimism. Not only were reports shelved but even its Chairmen were intimidated at times. The lethargy and inefficiency displayed by the Attorney-General’s department too do not add confidence to the hopes of the public.

Central Bank bond issue

Few remarks of a general nature are opportune at this moment.

First, it is necessary to keep in mind that the Central Bank bond issue is neither the only big fraud that took place in the country, nor the biggest in terms of loss to the treasury. To do so would be a manifestation of political bias. There were numerous other instances of big frauds including the infamous VAT scam, the hedging deal etc.

Second, these frauds are not necessarily solely due to the fault of individuals. They show the fault of the system of political administration and economic management, which breeds a culture of treating corruption and fraud as an inevitable concomitant of development. Ignoring this systematic failure would leave room for repetition of such incidents in future too. Unregulated markets do breed corruption as experience worldwide shows. Neo-liberal market fundamentalism has failed and there is a need for chartering an independent path of economic development based on innovative thinking and selective integration with the world economy.

Third, Sri Lankan legislation on combatting financial crime is inadequate and has to be updated to modern standards.

Fourth, the urgency and imperative need of constituting an independent and powerful Audit Commission as pledged by the present rulers at election time cannot be over-emphasized. There is also a danger of the government reneging on this promise due to pressure from vested interests from politicians and privileged sections of the bureaucracy.

Fifth, relentless public pressure is essential to compel the government to act decisively against corruption and fraud. It is only then that errant politicians and officials could be apprehended and punished. Here again the latter has launched a crusade against independent commissions and investigative authorities and even civil society organizations caricaturing them in evil terms and alleging foreign involvement. Unfortunately such voices do emanate from the government ranks too. In this respect the disparaging remarks on civil society leaders by Ministers and party spokesmen as well as the arrogant assertions of certain ministers against public agitation point to continuation of practices and traditions of yesteryear. It is no wonder since some of these spokespersons represented the former regime at election time, though they crossed-over to the Government later for reasons quite obvious.

Sixth, more transparency in government would lessen the possibilities of fraud. To do so it would be advisable to be more specific in identifying the exceptions to the divulging of information in the Right to Information Act lest errant officials could hide behind the vaguely worded exclusions such as national defence and contractual economic secrecy.

Seventh, an unbridled Rule of Law is a sine qua non of good governance or yahapalanaya. Not only politicians and administrators but also law enforcement officers and members of the judiciary itself too should uphold the fundamental tenets of a just judiciary. Diverse and at times even contradictory decisions in judicial decisions on similar complaints have caused public anxiety and would lead to an erosion of their confidence in the judiciary. For example, there is a clearly discernible bias in the granting of bail to suspects in favour of those with financial or political clout.

courtesy - Dailynews.lk